Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Cloud, 530 So. 2d 1146.

28 citing documents.

Skannal v. Jones Odom Davis & Politz, L.L.P. 124 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Leenerts Farm [Farms], Singer, Hunter [Hutner], Levine, Seeman & Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., *509 supra; LSBA v. Connolly, supra; Ex Parte Steckler, supra.
Hodges v. Reasonover 103 So. 3d 1069 La. 2012
State v. Johnson 41 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Barthelemy 32 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Adrienne Patout Smith v. Roy Patout La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Smith v. Patout 956 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
(emphasis added) (citations omitted).
In Re Succession of Bankston 844 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Chittenden v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 788 So. 2d 1140 La. 2001
Leenerts Farm[s], Singer, Hunter, Levine, Seeman & Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., supra ; LSBA v. Connolly, supra ; Ex Parte Steckler, supra .
State v. Gilliam 748 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
In Re Succession of Parham 755 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated in that: The disciplinary rules are mandatory rules that provide the minimum level of conduct to which an attorney must conform without being subject to disciplinary action.
Alco Collections, Inc. v. Poirier 680 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Succession of Wallace, 574 So.2d at 350 ; Leenerts Farms, Singer, Hutner, Levine, Seeman & Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 373 So.2d at 110, 115 .
Cloud v. Sanders 677 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
2d Cir.1987), reversed in part
Boutte v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 674 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
In re Godfrey 660 So. 2d 1205 La. 1995
We need not determine whether or not their actions constituted a violation of any Disciplinary Rule because even if they had, the overwhelming mitigating factors present in this case, including the fact that the conduct occurred prior to would require that this Court decline to impose any punishment on respondents.
Midboe v. Com'n on Ethics for Pub. Empl. 646 So. 2d 351 La. 1994
Barre v. St. Martin 636 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Trident Oil & Gas Corp. v. John O. Clay Exploration, Inc. 622 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
2d Cir.1987), rev’d on other grounds
Succession of Crowe v. Henry 602 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Soderquist v. Kramer 595 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
(emphasis added) (citation omitted).
Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Harrington 585 So. 2d 514 La. 1991
Succession of Wallace 574 So. 2d 348 La. 1991
Lyons v. Lyons 571 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Sanders 568 So. 2d 1025 La. 1990
State v. Walker 567 So. 2d 581 La. 1990
(a lawyer's violation of disciplinary rules by acquiring a proprietary interest in a client's cause of action, other than by means of a reasonable contingency fee contract, entitles the client to avoid the contract conveying the mineral interest).
State v. Floyd 544 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. *620 Romero, (La.App.
Mire v. City of Lake Charles 540 So. 2d 950 La. 1989
State v. Walker 539 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Romero 533 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988